02-26-2003, 03:41 AM
Hi,
I implied as much when I said "First by not enforcing the limitations on German armament (which, unlike the economic points of the treaty were *not* punitive, merely precautionary)." It contributed to the conditions that led to the coming to power of the Nazi party. As did a world wide depression. As did a period of unusual weather.
The fact is that all these things contributed to the coming of WW II in Europe. One thing that you are totally ignoring, as have the Europeans all along, is that WW II was indeed a global war, and that the fighting started in 1931 in Manchuria. I believe that that predates the take over of Germany by the Nazis ('32 through '33 IIRC).
Thus, to say that "I don't think that it is at all unreasonable to argue that the Treaty of Versailles was, ultimately, the springboard that set off the events of the next quarter century." is Eurocentric. Indeed, even within Europe, it does not address the questions of Fascism in Italy and the clash throughout the continent of the socialists and the communists.
Even if one wants to make Versailles central to the events through '45, one still needs to ask why the treaty was so vindictive. The answer there, of course, is partially because of the cruelty of WW I and partially because of Germany's repeated attempts at expansion over the previous centuries. Indeed the whole feeling between France and Germany had built up from the days of the French king and the German emperor and their continuous struggle for European supremacy. A struggle that involved both national pride and religious difference. Versailles was the culmination of the hatred nursed and fanned for centuries.
So, as I said in my previous post, each event has a cause that preceded it and is a cause of events that followed it. To say that Versailles was "the" cause of WW II is false, for Versailles in turn had a cause and so back into the dim reaches of history. However, that Versailles was a major contributing factor is true. Had the victors of WW I helped to rebuild Germany rather than trying to further destroy it, the history of the world *might* have been much different. Might, because many of the things preached by the Nazis were already in German culture. Their "superiority" to the people of the East. Their claim to all the lands of Poland and the Ukraine. And a streak of antisemitism that goes back for centuries throughout Europe and was always close to the surface in Germany, especially in Prussia. So, even had Versailles been a rational document instead of the emotional one it was, history might not have been changed much. The depression, the droughts, the crop shortages would still have been there.
However, with either the historical Treaty of Versailles or with a hypothetical "enlightened" one, had the people of the world (and the isolationists of USA are very much at fault in this) enforced reasonable disarmament provisions, had they not engaged in a policy of appeasement, then WW II could very well never have happened. Or, rather, would have been but a minor and local affair.
The Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman in a visit to Israel (Jerusalem Post 2/18/02) said that:
You cannot negotiate with terrorists because the single response of terrorists for fulfilling their demands is blackmail - new demands, nothing more...This was our experience with the regime of Adolph Hitler. In 1936 he could have been defeated by two French divisions during the occupation of the Rhineland, and there was no courage by democratic countries because of the appeasement policy.
So, I'm not denying the importance of Versailles. It opened the door. But I don't consider the existence of Versailles, nor its harshness, as absolutely leading to WW II -- many other factors contributed, and many of these factors were a lot more proximate to '39 than was a paper signed twenty years earlier. The failure of England, of France, and (yes) of the United States to act when action would have cost little is as much or more to blame. For when Versailles was signed, no one could with certainty predict the rise of Hitler. But by '36, Hitler was a reality, his intentions openly stated, his character clear. But the world gave him three more years to prepare. And payed horribly for those three years of peace.
--Pete
I implied as much when I said "First by not enforcing the limitations on German armament (which, unlike the economic points of the treaty were *not* punitive, merely precautionary)." It contributed to the conditions that led to the coming to power of the Nazi party. As did a world wide depression. As did a period of unusual weather.
The fact is that all these things contributed to the coming of WW II in Europe. One thing that you are totally ignoring, as have the Europeans all along, is that WW II was indeed a global war, and that the fighting started in 1931 in Manchuria. I believe that that predates the take over of Germany by the Nazis ('32 through '33 IIRC).
Thus, to say that "I don't think that it is at all unreasonable to argue that the Treaty of Versailles was, ultimately, the springboard that set off the events of the next quarter century." is Eurocentric. Indeed, even within Europe, it does not address the questions of Fascism in Italy and the clash throughout the continent of the socialists and the communists.
Even if one wants to make Versailles central to the events through '45, one still needs to ask why the treaty was so vindictive. The answer there, of course, is partially because of the cruelty of WW I and partially because of Germany's repeated attempts at expansion over the previous centuries. Indeed the whole feeling between France and Germany had built up from the days of the French king and the German emperor and their continuous struggle for European supremacy. A struggle that involved both national pride and religious difference. Versailles was the culmination of the hatred nursed and fanned for centuries.
So, as I said in my previous post, each event has a cause that preceded it and is a cause of events that followed it. To say that Versailles was "the" cause of WW II is false, for Versailles in turn had a cause and so back into the dim reaches of history. However, that Versailles was a major contributing factor is true. Had the victors of WW I helped to rebuild Germany rather than trying to further destroy it, the history of the world *might* have been much different. Might, because many of the things preached by the Nazis were already in German culture. Their "superiority" to the people of the East. Their claim to all the lands of Poland and the Ukraine. And a streak of antisemitism that goes back for centuries throughout Europe and was always close to the surface in Germany, especially in Prussia. So, even had Versailles been a rational document instead of the emotional one it was, history might not have been changed much. The depression, the droughts, the crop shortages would still have been there.
However, with either the historical Treaty of Versailles or with a hypothetical "enlightened" one, had the people of the world (and the isolationists of USA are very much at fault in this) enforced reasonable disarmament provisions, had they not engaged in a policy of appeasement, then WW II could very well never have happened. Or, rather, would have been but a minor and local affair.
The Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman in a visit to Israel (Jerusalem Post 2/18/02) said that:
You cannot negotiate with terrorists because the single response of terrorists for fulfilling their demands is blackmail - new demands, nothing more...This was our experience with the regime of Adolph Hitler. In 1936 he could have been defeated by two French divisions during the occupation of the Rhineland, and there was no courage by democratic countries because of the appeasement policy.
So, I'm not denying the importance of Versailles. It opened the door. But I don't consider the existence of Versailles, nor its harshness, as absolutely leading to WW II -- many other factors contributed, and many of these factors were a lot more proximate to '39 than was a paper signed twenty years earlier. The failure of England, of France, and (yes) of the United States to act when action would have cost little is as much or more to blame. For when Versailles was signed, no one could with certainty predict the rise of Hitler. But by '36, Hitler was a reality, his intentions openly stated, his character clear. But the world gave him three more years to prepare. And payed horribly for those three years of peace.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?